Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous. Mediated Communication #4

Here we go again. I came across this little gem on MSN.com. Yet another person better off than most decided to steal. If you play for the NFL clearly one could afford the item stolen. Dallas Cowboys running back Joseph Randall was arrested for stealing cologne from a local Dillards. It is what it is.  However, I am more interested in the closing statement of the report. "Randle had arguably his best game as a pro against the Seahawks on Sunday, so this couldn't have happened at a worse time for him from a professional standpoint."  Happened? Happened?  Don't things like accidents happen? Things out or our control happen ,weather, taxes and death etc.  This is something he chose to do.  It is highly unlikely the cologne just happened to fall into his pocket.  He consciously made the decision to not pay for the cologne and try to get a five finger discount.  Definitely some fallacy going on here, not only with the actions of the player but, some in the reporting as well.

Heroin for Tikes. Mediated Communication #3

I came across this report via Yahoo but it was originally posted on Rueters.  A Delaware mother is charged after her daughter brings heroin to daycare.  My initial reaction to this was "WHAT THE HELL!".  I am trying to critically think if that is the appropriate response to this.  I'm sure I'm spot on with WHAT THE HELL!  I would say the fallacy falls upon the Delaware judicial system.  Why was bail even an option?  Not only did she endanger her own children but, an innocent mistake by a 4 year old could have ended tragically.  I'm going to use some assumptive thinking here.  It seems clear that the mother either sells or helps sell heroin.  At least the individually bagged heroin in the daughters backpack leads me to suspect that she sells.  Again, how was bail even an option?  In my opinion no bail and some serious jail time for this lady (I purposely used lady).  Luckily no one was hurt.  However, how much will this affect and effect her children?  

Ignoring the Question. Mediated Communication #2

I came upon this article via facebook and online at KUTV.com. The article wasn't so much a fallacy or cogent so much was the persons being interviewed. A SLC gay club/bar was interviewed about mocking the LDS church with their advertisements. According to the article there were slandering remarks and advertisements toward the LDS church. The critical thinking of the club manager showed fallacy and did not (in my opinion) help the LGBT community achieve what it is striving for...equality. The manager showed signs of ignoring the question (#13), justifying and rationalizing the clubs behavior. Here are some quotes from the manager:

"We're not having people in garments dancing on the bar, we're not doing stuff like that, we're just having a good time," says Risbon. (Ignoring the question of mocking LDS church, justifying and rarionalizing)

"That is funny to me because we are a bar, our whole purpose is to have a good time and that's exactly what we're doing," says Risbon. (Justifying and rationalizing their behavior)

The clubs behavior strikes me as a bit hypocritical because, if the shoe was on the other foot the LGBT community would be demanding an apology and equality. If you are about equality, it goes both ways.

Thinking for Ourselves. Refutation

It is very difficult for the U.S. government to feed us what we should think because we live in the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave". One of the greatest beauties of living in the good old US of A is the First Amendment...45 words, 5 freedoms. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and petition. Because of those freedoms we get to experience a libertarian/Social Responsibility model of free expression. There are four types of free expression.

Authoritarian:   Media is a private enterprise owned and operated by the government.  This type of media control is justified as "The common good" for its citizens. Russia and Zimbabwe are examples of Authoritarian "free expression".

Communist:  Government press only.  The news is defined as what is important to and by the government. Communist free expression ensures "stability".  China and North Korea are examples of Communist "free expression".

Libertarian:  Has the highest degree of freedom.  There are no restrictions on media.  The consumer must research and determine what is true or false.

Social Responsibility aka The Forth State:  This functions as an "unofficial branch of the government".   Because the media is privately owned and is independent from the government it can "watch" over the system and report to the citizens. This way information is relayed to the citizens and, under the system of checks and balances the citizens can decide what is true or false. All of this reporting (because it is privately owned) does so with out the government dictating what should be reported.  U.S. uses Libertarian and Social Responsibility (The Fourth State) as their model of free expression.

The example given in class was arguing that the government/media  in Russia or Ukraine could not be trusted on a reported conflict between the two countries.  Each country was reporting that the other was to blame for the conflict, reporting one point of view thus escalating the issue.  While the example is valid because those countries freedom of expression operate under Authoritarian, it is a fallacy to assume all governments control what the public have access to.  Both countries controlled what they wanted the citizens to see and think.

Under a libertarian and social responsibility model of free expression both sides of any given conflict will be reported, thus allowing the citizens to decide what is true or false.  Because we have the freedoms we do it is extremely difficult (borderline impossible) "to get what the government would have us think".

But what about those that live under the authoritarian model how can they know the truth?  Where there is a will there is a way...to find the truth!  Russia and Ukraine both block and blacklist URLs that they feel will cause "harm" to the people of their society.  Some of the blacklisted sites like child pornography really could cause harm, but what about political truth?  IF..and I mean IF, the people of Russia and Ukraine really wanted to gain access to blacklisted sites containing what is really happening in the world they could use Opera Software desktop browser.  "Blocked Russian opposition site recommends Opera to outwit blacklist" is an article that gives an overview of the conflict that was given as the example in class.  However, this article also gives great information on how people can obtain access to blocked sites that are promoting the truth.  Because Opera uses Norwegian-based servers it circumnavigates the blacklisted sites.  There are other software browsers they could use as well, all using servers outside of the internet censorship.   Basically they can search the internet freely because they are using a server that uses a libertarian or social responsibility model, no restrictions, which means access to the truth.

The internet is so big there is no way to censor it all.  There will always be a way to find what your are looking for, true or false.  Those that live under an authoritarian/communist model of free expression have unbiased options that will allow them the opportunity to think for themselves.

First Constructive: Black Shiny Substance...Oil

     Why buy a hamburger when you have steak at home? We spend billions each year buying oil when we have access to our own oil. The U.S. has oil and we could use it to better America. The U.S. should increase it's domestic production of oil. By doing so we could lessen our dependency on other countries, create more US jobs, and use the savings to boost the U.S. economy.

     While it is evident and obvious that the more we do for ourselves (as a country) the less we will depend on others. Helping ourselves can have great side effects, one of them being more jobs for Americans. Not only would it create approximately 1.2 million (pg. 19) jobs, but better paying jobs. For example; Utahans that are employed by oil companies make almost twice as much per year as the average annual income of all other Utah residents. Not only will it create jobs stemming directly from the oil companies themselves, but it would create jobs within companies that build and support the oil companies.

     More jobs and better income is great for America and its citizens, and even better for States and Federal Government. More jobs with better income means taxes, not just on the employees but the oil companies too. State and Government agencies would be able to tax the oil and be entitled to lease and royalty payments. The new taxes could total up to $18 billion for State and local areas, and $54 billion (pg. 19) for federal tax income. That could mean a total of $560 billion in State taxes, and $1.64 trillion in federal taxes over a 30 yr period. That is a lot of money that can be put back into the U.S. economy.

   Oil, black shiny liquid substance...OIL. When I hear the word "oil" I think "Middle East" (insert assumptive thinking). Upon research of my proposition to use more domestic oil, I was shocked to find that a majority of the oil we use comes from...us! We produce nearly 40% of the oil we use as a country. We receive more oil from Latin America and Canada than we do from the Middle East. Even though a majority of the oil used comes from us, America still spends around $400 billion per year on imported oil. That is a big chunk of U.S. tax dollars being spent on something we already have (Hamburger...Steak). If the U.S. increased domestic oil production by 10% it could be saving Americans $40 billion dollars each year. Increasing domestic oil could also mean a decrease in what we pay at the pump, thus saving more. If the U.S. were to increase its oil production it could become the top producer world wide, and possibly become self sufficient (as far as energy is concerned).

     The U.S. could benefit greatly by increasing domestic oil. There would more jobs, better paying jobs, revenue created from royalties and taxes and, best of all we would become more independent from the oil monopolies.

"Latte Salute" Mediated Communication #1

I originally saw the "latte salute" on Facebook.  There are crazy outlandish remarks on how disrespectful "Obamie" was/is because he saluted  two Marines while holding a cup of coffee in the same hand. Originally I too would have been upset at his carelessness, but (enter critical thinking) come to find out Presidents aren't required to salute in the first place.  It all started with Ronald Reagan, and every President since has carried on his tradition.  Although it has much of America up in arms over the salute, it is very fallacious of them to assume he has done something wrong.  Was it disrespectful of him to salute with a cup of coffee in his hand? Yes.  Did he actually do something wrong? No (outside of offending people, is that even wrong?). There is a great little read on New York Post.  I particularly like the quotes they hi-lite, it exposes the mind set of America.  Some people trash talk Obama while other acknowledge that he is not required to salute, but if he chooses to do so, please do so with respect.  I would have to agree with the later.  If you choose to salute the military please do so with respect.  They offer everything (themselves) to protect our freedoms, they deserve at the very least our respect and much much more.  To keep things fair there is a nice shot of President Bush saluting with his dog in his hands.